Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Children in bikeseats - breaking red lights

  • 02-09-2009 2:21pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭


    Schools are back and over the last few days I've noticed a lot of parents in Dublin City Centre with their little kids on bicyle seats, appropriately helmetted.

    By pure coincidence, virtually every single one has driven straight through red lights with their kids on the back! Is this considered normal behaviour by cyclists in Ireland?

    Now before anyone attacks, I'll acknowledge, I'm not a cyclist. I am a driver, but I'm not one of the nutjob anti-cyclist types. I just can't understand how anyone can be stupid enough to put their children (whatever about themselves), at such risk.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,318 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    churchview wrote: »
    Schools are back and over the last few days I've noticed a lot of parents in Dublin City Centre with their little kids on bicyle seats, appropriately helmetted.

    By pure coincidence, virtually every single one has driven straight through red lights with their kids on the back! Is this considered normal behaviour by cyclists in Ireland?

    Now before anyone attacks, I'll acknowledge, I'm not a cyclist. I am a driver, but I'm not one of the nutjob anti-cyclist types. I just can't understand how anyone can be stupid enough to put their children (whatever about themselves), at such risk.

    It seems to be "normal" for many cyclists. Can't say I agree with it. It's not always a risk, but sometimes it is.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    churchview wrote: »
    Is this considered normal behaviour by cyclists in Ireland?

    It's pretty normal. The majority of cyclists either don't know or choose to ignore road traffic law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    @churchview- it is not yet Friday.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭Vélo


    It's bad enough doing it on your own but with a kid on board it's just crazy. They think they're doing the right thing by putting a helmet on and then do something like this. You'll find most people on this site obey traffic lights, it's just most bicycle lanes we've a problem with, but let's not get into that.


    Anyway you're correct it's mind boggling why people would do this, it's only on very rare occasions that it would be safer to go through a red light.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭Vélo


    blorg wrote: »
    @churchview- it is not yet Friday.

    In fairness the OP isn't looking for an cyclist v driver debate argument, he/she's just wondering why someone would take such a risk with a child.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    Well it depends how they do it. I suppose if they sail through without looking its dangerous. If they slow down or stop then go through an empty junction on a red light it would be fine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,122 ✭✭✭Peterx


    Why do the vast majority of these cyclist parents think the child needs a helmet but they don't?
    some lights beg to be broken, especially T junctions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Vélo wrote: »
    In fairness the OP isn't looking for an cyclist v driver debate argument, he/she's just wondering why someone would take such a risk with a child.


    Velo - Don't worry, the "it's not yet Friday" comment was over my head. I don't even understand it, so it won't get me into an argument.

    And don't get me started on cycle lanes either! Neither cyclists nor motorists seem to understand the rules on these. I've had motorists as well as cyclists giving out to me for driving in lanes with broken white lines - The motorists on occasion when there isn't even a bicycle in sight! (not that this affects the rules)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,318 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    Peterx wrote: »
    Why do the vast majority of these cyclist parents think the child needs a helmet but they don't?
    some lights beg to be broken, especially T junctions.

    Cos the child is too young to make decisions for themselves.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭Vélo


    Peterx wrote: »
    Why do the vast majority of these cyclist parents think the child needs a helmet but they don't?
    some lights beg to be broken, especially T junctions.

    I don't always wear a helmet but there's no way I'd put one of my kids on the back of my bike without one.

    It may be a contradiction but I just wouldn't feel comfortable without them wearing one and I'd never forgive myself if anything happened to one of them.

    Now that's enough from me on the helmet debate!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,129 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    If you think about what happens most of the time when someone falls off a bike, usually they'll land on their feet or some part of an upper limb. The child on the other hand will be stuck in the child seat and is far more likely to hit its head when the bike falls over. Also a child's skull would be more fragile than an adult's.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,875 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Please don't turn into a helmet thread!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,875 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    BTW, tangentially on the subject, does anyone have one of these? I have a friend looking for a child trailer, and this one looks quite nice. Converts into a stroller and has suspension.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/accessories/trailer/product/cougar-ii-9822

    Are they available in any shop in Ireland?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    churchview wrote: »
    And don't get me started on cycle lanes either! Neither cyclists nor motorists seem to understand the rules on these. I've had motorists as well as cyclists giving out to me for driving in lanes with broken white lines - The motorists on occasion when there isn't even a bicycle in sight! (not that this affects the rules)
    Bear in mind while you can drive in a broken white line lane you do have to yield to any bicycle traffic already in them... There are also restrictions on parking in them (only loading for 30 minutes and if there is no alternative parking available.) The ROTR actually say plainly "Do not park or drive on cycle tracks" with no distinction between solid and dashed white line although this is in their hippie "respecting other road users" section and is not a "you must not." I think in general "avoid unless you have to and always yield to cyclists" would be a reasonable approach...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,129 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    churchview wrote: »
    And don't get me started on cycle lanes either! Neither cyclists nor motorists seem to understand the rules on these. I've had motorists as well as cyclists giving out to me for driving in lanes with broken white lines - The motorists on occasion when there isn't even a bicycle in sight! (not that this affects the rules)

    Well if there was room to for you to drive in your lane without encroaching on the cycle lane then I would consider your behaviour, while legal, to be petty and rude.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,038 ✭✭✭penexpers


    churchview wrote: »
    Schools are back and over the last few days I've noticed a lot of parents in Dublin City Centre with their little kids on bicyle seats, appropriately helmetted.

    By pure coincidence, virtually every single one has driven straight through red lights with their kids on the back! Is this considered normal behaviour by cyclists in Ireland?

    Now before anyone attacks, I'll acknowledge, I'm not a cyclist. I am a driver, but I'm not one of the nutjob anti-cyclist types. I just can't understand how anyone can be stupid enough to put their children (whatever about themselves), at such risk.

    I see plenty of cars with kids in them breaking red lights. Sometimes I see them unsecured in the back. Sometimes I even see them jumping up and down in the front seat while the car is moving.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,227 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Stark wrote: »
    Also a child's skull would be more fragile than an adult's.

    Well, a mouse's skull is more fragile than a horse's, but as the saying goes, "when thrown from a tall building, a mouse will bounce whereas a horse will splash".

    I don't know that the same testing has been done with babies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,318 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    Lumen wrote: »
    I don't know that the same testing has been done with babies.

    Now we know what to do for the weekend.................. go cycling.




    Bet y'all thought I meant drop babies from buildings! Sickos


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Thanks guys. Disappointing to see the personal attacks have started...led by a moderator.

    The rules on cycles lanes are a farce.

    As they are drafted, where a cycle lane is provided, it is illegal for a cyclist not to use them unless they are turning away from the direction of the cycle lane. So, cyclists who should be protected by lanes are the ones who have broken a law if they don't use them, whereas drivers can enter them (if with broken lines) with impugnity. Makes no sense at all.

    It is not illegal for a car to enter one with a broken line and nowhere in the legislation does it state that priority must be given to a cyclist (and to be clear I do think priority should be given and the legislation should state this).

    There is a new cycle lane (broken white line) on Lower Kevin Street, approaching Stephen's Green. Car drivers since the cycle lane was painted have now adopted the practice of sitting in the centre of the driving lane, meaning that there is only room for one lane of car traffic. There is plenty of room for two lanes of traffic, including a cycle lane, if the drivers kept to the right (with the exception of one badly designed corner).

    In other words, there is plenty of room for two lanes of cars, meaning less congestion, but car drivers don't know how to use the road appropriately.

    "Well if there was room to for you to drive in your lane without encroaching on the cycle lane then I would consider your behaviour, while legal, to be petty and rude." To be clear, my point is that there is room for two lanes of traffic, with room also for the cycle lane, but drivers don't know how to position themselves on the road appropriately.

    As for my being accused of being petty and rude, it's probably best that I not comment on that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,129 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Lumen wrote:
    Well, a mouse's skull is more fragile than a horse's, but as the saying goes, "when thrown from a tall building, a mouse will bounce whereas a horse will splash".

    I don't know that the same testing has been done with babies.

    We'd know the answer if Michael Jackson was let go ahead with the test.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,227 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    churchview wrote: »
    As for my being accused of being petty and rude, it's probably best that I not comment on that.

    You mentioned it twice in one post, but I think you got away with it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,129 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    churchview wrote:
    "Well if there was room to for you to drive in your lane without encroaching on the cycle lane then I would consider your behaviour, while legal, to be petty and rude." To be clear, my point is that there is room for two lanes of traffic, with room also for the cycle lane, but drivers don't know how to position themselves on the road appropriately.

    As for my being accused of being petty and rude, it's probably best that I not comment on that.

    I didn't accuse you of being petty and rude, I just said it would be petty and rude if you blocked the lane for the sake of blocking it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Stark wrote: »
    I didn't accuse you of being petty and rude, I just said it would be petty and rude if you blocked the lane for the sake of blocking it.

    Fair enough. You'd make a good lawyer :D (maybe you are one!). While you didn't directly accuse me it would be reasonable to draw an inference from the wording used. Anyway, 'nough said - hackles withdrawn ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    You were not accused of being petty and rude, as Stark clarifies, it was clearly the behaviour that was being criticized.

    Other than that I agree with the main thrust of your points...

    However it may please you to know that mandatory use is being repealed this year.

    As for priority:

    The legislation does actually define cycle tracks as areas of the road "part of a road ... which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles." It was previously defined as "exclusively for the use of pedal cycles" but that was amended in 1998.

    Apart from that when changing lane you always have to yield to traffic already in that lane, so I am not getting this particularly from the legislation pertaining to cycle tracks. The common situation I am thinking of is where a car is stopped in the road turning right, and a car wishing to go straight on dives left into the cycle lane to get around it. Many drivers will do this without paying any attention to cyclists already in that lane... technically it is illegal to do enter the lane AT ALL if the lane is mandatory but I wouldn't have any objection if there are no cyclists around. If non-mandatory you can do it but would have to yield to traffic already in that lane (e.g. bicycles.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    blorg wrote: »

    However it may please you to know that mandatory use is being repealed this year.

    The illogical thing is that cars will still be allowed into them, and mandatory use of them by cyclists was seemingly never enforced anyway (not that it should have been given the state of most cycle lanes)

    As for priority:

    The legislation does actually define cycle tracks as areas of the road "part of a road ... which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles." It was previously defined as "exclusively for the use of pedal cycles" but that was amended in 1998.

    Apart from that when changing lane you always have to yield to traffic already in that lane, so I am not getting this particularly from the legislation pertaining to cycle tracks. The common situation I am thinking of is where a car is stopped in the road turning right, and a car wishing to go straight on dives left into the cycle lane to get around it. Many drivers will do this without paying any attention to cyclists already in that lane

    Yes, of course you're right in the scenario above. As you say, those are the general rules regardless of the type of road user.

    But, say in a scenario where cars are stopped at red lights waiting to go straight ahead, and as they are in the left lane, they are stopped partially in a cycle lane. A bicycle approaching from behind (presuming the car didn't cut in ahead of it) does not have any right to the cycle lane because the car is already in it.

    Frankly the rules on cycle lanes just make no sense. You're obviously aware of the relevent statutory instrument but for those of you who aren't it's [FONT=&quot]S.I. No. 274/1998 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 274.[/FONT]


    By the way, apologies if this is difficult to read as I don't know how to use the multi-quote thingy.
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,506 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Order, order in the court!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    churchview wrote: »
    But, say in a scenario where cars are stopped at red lights waiting to go straight ahead, and as they are in the left lane, they are stopped partially in a cycle lane. A bicycle approaching from behind (presuming the car didn't cut in ahead of it) does not have any right to the cycle lane because the car is already in it.
    Yes in the case of a dashed line although it would be illegal for the car to be in the lane if it had a solid line. In the case of a dashed line it would be courteous not to be in the cycle lane unless necessary although there are certainly roads where it is impossible not to be in the cycle lane if you want to drive on the road at all. There are even some of these with mandatory lanes :)
    Frankly the rules on cycle lanes just make no sense.
    Certainly agree with you there, however it looks like they are now going to be at least partially fixed with the removal of the mandatory use requirement at least.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 154 ✭✭crazydingo


    I've seen mention of the mandatory use of cycle lanes being doe away with a few times but any idea when this will happen?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    Sometime before the end of the year. Down the bottom of this thread: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055504073


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,875 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I do wonder whether the government will last long enough to repeal the mandatory-use legislation.

    I emailed FG and Labour about the issue before the last election, and they made it clear that they had no plans to repeal the legislation, so I wouldn't bet on a new government honouring the commitments in the 2009 cycling framework.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I do wonder whether the government will last long enough to repeal the mandatory-use legislation.

    I emailed FG and Labour about the issue before the last election, and they made it clear that they had no plans to repeal the legislation, so I wouldn't bet on a new government honouring the commitments in the 2009 cycling framework.
    As far as I know all the other parties except for FG backed the cycling framework document. FG didn't and plan to create their own. I don't know why, the existing one is just about perfect.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,875 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    As far as I know all the other parties except for FG backed the cycling framework document. FG didn't and plan to create their own. I don't know why, the existing one is just about perfect.
    Yeah, it's a great document. I really liked it. I was amazed at both its tone and its content.

    I have a suspicion that now that the PDs are gone, FG has taken their place as the party most indifferent to cyclists. However, unlike the PDs, I don't think they tip over into hostile.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1 aob1990


    Only saw it happen yesterday coming into Ballsbridge. A lady wearing a helmet going straight through a red light with a child on the back.


Advertisement